"OH GOD WHY"-me regarding me most of the time

Menu

Every time someone sees this photo, a bald eagle cries a tear of freedom. Please share this post to let freedom rain on us all.

“Impossible! Captain America would never say that, he’s a Nazi-punching, America-loving hero!” you might be shouting. And you’re partially right-after all, Steve Roger’s iconic appearance into comics was none other than PUNCHING HITLER IN THE FACE, which is certainly something we all should aspire to be able to do at some point in our lives (come on, time travel!).

And yet, Captain America-Steve Rogers-DID say that line! And he wasn’t a Hydra agent or mind-swapped or anything when he said it! HOW CAN THIS BE? IS THIS SOME TIME TRAVEL TRICKERY, OR SOME SIMILAR SHENANIGANS (hint: yes)?

This chunky fella is a cosmic being so WATCH it

In What If ? Issue #44 (a long-running Marvel series that looks at the hypothetical realities the weird bald guy in the above panel is talking about), Steve Rogers isn’t unfrozen in the 60’s, while the world keeps on turning. When Nixon goes to China though, this ruffles some feathers. Some people feel like America’s being sold out to a foreign power-a Communist one at that! And that causes this dude to take matters into his own hands, to take action instead of just talk as the politicians do…to thaw out…Captain America and Bucky?!

DAMN THE POLITICIANS, FULL SPEED AHEAD!

hey wait a minute

“HOLD UP! You said Steve Rogers was stuck in ice and you didn’t say anything about Bucky being in ice WHAT’S GOING ON HERE”-many readers, including me, when I first read the comic.

Luckily, Professor Fury at Pretty Fakes gave a damn good explanation, so I’ll quote that: “[Turns out that in mainstream Marvel], two men who idolized the original Cap and Bucky and who stepped in to fill their bright-red boots when the originals vanished near the end of World War II. In any case, 50s-era Cap and Bucky did just fine until they succumbed to their intense paranoia about Communist infiltration; eventually, they became so violent and unstable that the government had to put them in suspended animation. (This all came to a head in the regular Marvel Universe inCap 154-156).”

But in this alternate reality, these two copies are brought back to run around, and while they do some good (they’re physically pretty much the same as the originals, and can fight crime and supervillains), their fervent anti-communism and hyper-nationalism pretty quickly catch the attention of some shady folks. Specifically, the Secret Empire (it’s secret so I’m using italics), whose name kinda gives away their goal. Imposter America believes that the only way to make America great again is to make sure people stay in their places, so he’s more than happy to help.

Bannon could probably pull off that hairstyle. Or he could get a wig like Trump, that works too.

Since Captain America is so beloved by people, and since the Red Scare is still pretty high up there, the Secret Empire gets Imposter America and Bucky to speak out/fear-monger and drive public opinion further against civil rights movements and minorities in general.

Because of this, by 1983 a Harlem Wall is built to keep most of the uppity minorities subversive elements of society in place, a National Identity Card is created to make sure that only Americans get American jobs (“A Card for Americans, A Plan for America!”), the press has been suppressed, and much of the United States is a police state.

It’s around this time that Steve Rogers is found in the ice by a diverse Navy submarine crew sick of Trump’s Imposter America’s America. After being brought back to life, Captain America finds America. Or rather, a nightmare version of the country he loved.

After meeting up with the resistance (Jonah Jameson, Nick Fury, Spiderman, and the Black Cadres), Steve Rogers decides to take the fight to the government. The stage is set for a climactic showdown between Captain America and Imposter America.

The showdown does come, and it delivers.

In each panel, how fast can you tell which Captain America is which?

Which Captain America best represents the majority of Americans in that world? In that government? In our world? In our government?

Which one should be our Captain America?

After beating the imposter, Captain America steps onto the stage….and the crowd starts throwing stuff at him, yelling that he’s a traitor and not the real Captain America after all.

And that prompts one of the single greatest pages in comic book history.

Does the rhetoric about removing the minorities impurities and doing whatever it takes to keep America “great” sound familiar? If it doesn’t, I suggest you listen to more sources of news more often and more carefully.

How about the part where Captain America says that without its ideals-the ones we espouse in our Constitution and Bill of Rights-America is a piece of trash?

We as a country and people are not great simply because we are American. There is no intrinsic moral value in that title, our flag, or even our nation. It is what we do as people and as a people that determines the value of those things. Imposter America was Captain America for many of those Americans because he reflected the values that they held.

This is the same reason that this Captain America is ours, and why he fought against tyranny, against injustice, and against Imposter America. But Captain America also knows the danger that a demagogue poses-after all, a version of him just proved to be an excellent example. And thus:

yea I shed a tear too

That’s what we have to do now.

Look to our hearts, join with those that some deny to be our brothers and sisters, and reach out for the ideals that make our country great.

If you’re expecting me to post the nudes, imagine me reaching through the internet and slapping you really hard.

This sort of behavior and blatant violation of privacy is disgusting. So, don’t go and look for those images because that’s a pretty damn scummy thing to do. Right now, this shit is trending as “the Fappening” which is so pathetic it’s hilarious.

To those who will inevitably complain that “WELL I WOULDN’T MIND HAVING MY NUDES LEAKED ONLINE, THEY SHOULDN’T HAVE UPLOADED PHOTOS BECAUSE OF THE RISK” there’s some glaringly obvious issues with your bullshit assertions.

First off, in the vast majority of cases, those people who talk tough about not caring about privacy violations tend to really quickly change their minds once their own privacy is compromised. Second, saying that “well if you took those photos and uploaded them you automatically risk this happening” is pretty freaking stupid, because that logic can be used to condone all sorts of awful things (I mean this is not like these photos magically leaked out of her phone because she emailed them to the press or something-somebody actively bypassed (mediocre) Apple security to do this). Ergo, stop that shitty attitude.

If we’re lucky, the dude(s) responsible will be caught for this and sentenced appropriately, just like this fellow. It’d be hilariously ironic if the people responsible for this were doxxed/revealed publicly when arrested and proceeded to whine about anonymity and the like (as most of the people who are okay with this sort of stuff tend to do).

A report released on Tuesday on accusations of widespread sexual abuse in the northern England city of Rotherham found that about 1,400 minors — some as young as 11 years old — were beaten, raped and trafficked from 1997 to 2013 as the local authorities ignored a series of red flags.

Some children were doused in gasoline and threatened with being set on fire if they reported their abusers, the report said, and others were forced to watch rapes and threatened with the same fate. In more than a third of the cases, the victims appear to have been known to child protection agencies, but the police and local government officials failed to act.

Within hours of the report’s publication, the leader of the local government council resigned.

“Having considered the report, I believe it is only right that I, as leader, take responsibility on behalf of the council for the historic failings that are described so clearly in the report, and it is my intention to do so,” said Roger Stone, the leader of the Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council since 2003.

Wow. That’s pretty frickin’ horrific. That works out to roughly a new girl being sexually abused every 4 days.

Let’s keep going, and see where the controversy comes up.

Again, from the NYT article:

The vast majority of perpetrators have been identified as South Asian and most victims were young white girls, adding to the complexity of the case. Some officials appeared to believe that social workers pointing to a pattern of sexual exploitation were exaggerating, while others reportedly worried about being accused of racism if they spoke out. The report accused officials of ignoring “a politically inconvenient truth” in turning a blind eye to men of Pakistani heritage grooming vulnerable white girls for sex.

Uh oh. I’m guessing you can see where the outcry is coming.

And to make things worse…

Three earlier reports, published from 2002 to 2006, detailed the abuse, and according to Ms. Jay, “could not have been clearer in the description of the situation in Rotherham.” But the first one was “effectively suppressed” and the other two “ignored,” she said.

Some officials were apparently ordered by their managers to withhold information on the ethnic origin of the abusers, the report said. As a result, no contact was made with local Pakistani leaders for help in identifying gangs that continued to assault and abduct teenagers.

So, it might seem like the situation was kept under wraps for 16 years in order to protect the primarily-Pakistani dudes. MY GOD LOOK WHAT THE POLITICALLY CORRECT MOVEMENT HAS CAUSED. IT CAUSES HORRIFIC SHIT LIKE THIS TO BE COVERED UP.

Here is an inaccurate analysis of the situation and why the situation got as screwed up as it did (which is incredibly screwed up FYI-none of this post is condoning what was done here).

Except that’s not what the report actually says.

Here, I’m passing it off to Lord Squishy from Sufficient Velocity, actual lawyer and good debater, who breaks down the report. It’s a bit long, but worth looking over. Look below these two images for a Tl;DR.

The last sentence is an important one: This appears to be a situation where there were a multitude of factors which differed significantly depending on where your position was in the hierarchy.

“But wait Adarsha!” you say. “What are those multitude of factors?”

Ask and ye shall receive. This stuff is all in the report, but I didn’t take photos and put them here because this is already a pretty pic-heavy post, and honestly it’s not too hard to find the actual information (going off of Squishy’s post below) in the report if you know what to look for.

In addition, chronic underfunding was an issue according to the report-we’re talking nearly 40% staff vacancy rate for social workers at one point, which would certainly contribute to the oversights.

Keep in mind that there are a lot of pencil-pushers and middlemen in the office who probably had no idea what was going on. The amount of people going “AW YEA SCANDAL FORMING PEOPLE GETTING RAPED AND I’M GONNA NOT GIVE A SHIT ABOUT EM AND LAUGH AND DRINK COFFEE WHILE TWIRLING MY POINTED MOUSTACHE” was probably a very small set. The reality is more complicated.

But what about the whole Pakistani thing? Doesn’t the fact that a large fraction of the perpetrators were Pakistani mean anything? Or their culture/set of values?

Well, yea. But not necessarily what you think. The screwed up ideals/values that lead to these atrocities are not uniquely Pakistani. You can find similar versions anywhere in the world, regardless of ethnicity. Rape/abuse culture do not intrinsically belong to any one people. It is an issue that can be found among any race (as meaningless of a term as that is biologically).

Moving on!

First, I want to reiterate: I am not condoning any of the cases of abuse. These are all horrific, and this is still a scandal of huge proportions. But this scandal was not caused by a desire to be politically correct. Only those with an agenda against certain groups will claim that.

I ask them to not politicize the abuse of 1400 girls and abuse the horrifying acts simply to slander groups they don’t like for no valid reason.

Finally, I extend my sincerest condolences to those girls and their families. Hopefully, bringing this scandal to light can bring out reforms (and more funding) to ensure that things like this don’t happen again.

Share this:

Like this:

A little over a year ago, one of my best friends and role models-Jon Chia-passed away. I had-and still have-a tough time coping with his passing, and a while back I entertained the idea of “what if I could bring back Chia at the expense of my own life.” A classic scenario that I’m fairly sure a lot of people who lose someone close to them contemplate. And I was trying to think of what I said. This morning I finally decided to polish what I had been saving for a few months and post it, just so I can have some peace of mind.

I miss you buddy.

Hey Jon! Look, I know you’re probably surprised….and pretty pissed off that I’m doing this. I have, what, about a minute or so before it’s “good game, well played,” so hear me out, okay? No, shut up, the deal’s been made, don’t give me that look and please stop calling me a “dense motherfucker” I’m trying to be poignant here. We can talk later. Or not.

Look, the idea of a world where you’re not in it saddens me. And it sure as hell saddens a lot of your friends too. In fact, it’s not just sad, it’s just wrong! The world deserves better. It deserves a guy who cares a hell of a lot about it and is smart and dedicated enough to save it too.

But you know what else? Beyond all that grandiose world-saving crap? The idea of you and me apart strikes me as very, very wrong. Yes, I understand the irony in what I’m doing now, but listen.

Promise me this Jon. Keep being strong. Keep being revolutionary and brilliant and insane. Keep being you. Yes, that means keep being stubborn and sarcastic and sometimes a dumbass and good lord frustrating, but also wonderful.

Heh. And to think, I will never see you again.

…

One more thing Jon–one last thing–the most important thing.

Because I want to you to always know this, and because I never said it enough: I love you.

Remember a while back France banned full-body veils being worn? That stuff was appealed and went to the EU Court of Human Rights, who (screwed up and) upheld the ban.

French ban on the wearing in public of clothing designed to conceal one’s face does not breach the Convention

In today’s Grand Chamber judgment in the case of S.A.S. v. France (application no. 43835/11), which is final, the European Court of Human Rights held,

by a majority, that there had been no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, and no violation of Article 9 (right to respect for freedom of thought, conscience and religion);

unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention combined with Articles 8 or 9.

The case concerned the complaint of a French national, who is a practising Muslim, that she is no longer allowed to wear the full-face veil in public following the entry into force, on 11 April 2011, of a law prohibiting the concealment of one’s face in public places (Law no. 2010-1192 of 11 October 2010).

The Court emphasised that respect for the conditions of “living together” was a legitimate aim for the measure at issue and that, particularly as the State had a lot of room for manoeuvre (“a wide margin of appreciation”) as regards this general policy question on which there were significant differences of opinion, the ban imposed by the Law of 11 October 2010 did not breach the Convention.

Principal facts

The applicant is a French national who was born in 1990 and lives in France. She is a devout Muslim and in her submissions she said that she wore the burqa and niqab in accordance with her religious faith, culture and personal convictions. As she explained, the burqa is a full-body covering including a mesh over the face, and the niqab is a full-face veil leaving an opening only for the eyes. The applicant also emphasised that neither her husband nor any other member of her family put pressure on her to dress in this manner. She added that she wore the niqab in public and in private, but not systematically. She was thus content not to wear the niqab in certain circumstances but wished to be able to wear it when she chose to do so. Lastly, her aim was not to annoy others but to feel at inner peace with herself.

…

Note that the ruling only prohibits full-body veils, so head scarves such as hijabs are still fine. Nonetheless, this ruling IMO is flawed.

First off, note that the reason being cited isn’t security, which is a valid concern in certain cases: for example, inside a bank, having full facial covering makes IDing that person difficult (in case of a robbery or the like). However, the reasons being cited are about protecting public order and the like…which don’t really make sense.

Beyond the classic point of why should the government have the right to choose what you wear, one of the arguments brought up in favor of the ban is the idea that the ban helps stop the restriction of women’s freedoms. However, there are plenty of Muslim women who voluntarily choose to wear full-body veils…so you’re trying to stop the restriction of women’s freedoms…by restricting women’s freedoms. Yea. Slight issue there.